Olsen v. Drug Enforcement Admin.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that GoDaddy was shielded from publisher liability where the complaint alleged only that it refused to remove an allegedly defamatory newsletter
• finding GoDaddy immune from liability for defamation for failing to remove an allegedly defamatory newsletter authored by a third party
• finding allegations that defendant “refused to remove” allegedly defamatory content could not withstand immunity under the CDA
• citing, inter alia, Kruska v. Perverted Justice Found. Inc., No. CV 08–0054–PHX–SMM, 2008 WL 2705377, at (D. Ariz. July 9, 2008) (“GoDaddy, as a web host, qualifies as an interactive computer service provider under the CDA.”)
• “Preemption [from liability arising from state or local law] under the Communications Decency Act is an affirmative defense.”
• “In short, a 8 plaintiff defamed on the internet can sue the original speaker, but typically cannot sue the messenger.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).